161 GB?

[Golden Boy]

will Forza Horizon 6 be 300gb?

[Kiwibom]

Be prepared more AAA games will be around that size in the next few years. Same thing happend when moving from ps3/xbox 360 to ps4/xbox one. Games went from about 5-12gb to 40-90GB with a few outliars (100+GB)

[Golden Boy]

Originally posted by Kiwibom:

Be prepared more AAA games will be around that size in the next few years. Same thing happend when moving from ps3/xbox 360 to ps4/xbox one. Games went from about 5-12gb to 40-90GB with a few outliars (100+GB)

this is insane

[1GAMER]

just wait till games are 1TB lol

[Psyringe]

Originally posted by Golden Boy:

Originally posted by Kiwibom:

Be prepared more AAA games will be around that size in the next few years. Same thing happend when moving from ps3/xbox 360 to ps4/xbox one. Games went from about 5-12gb to 40-90GB with a few outliars (100+GB)

this is insane

Nope, it's simply progress. High-fidelity textures with multiple layers of materials simply do need a lot of space, there's no way around that.

Is it possible to create great games within less than 1 GB of space? Sure. The original Doom took up less than 2.5 MB. But in the triple-A market, where graphics are important, developers will make use of the hardware that's available. Current-gen consoles can handle games of 150+ GB in size, so developers make use of it by including a large variety of hi-res textures.

[ph!l]

4k open world gaming. They used to add the hi-res texture packs as free dlc for those wanting them. Now they just force you to download the 4k textures with the games.
As resolution increases games are only going to get bigger.

[Golden Boy]

Originally posted by Psyringe:

Originally posted by Golden Boy:

this is insane

Nope, it's simply progress. High-fidelity textures with multiple layers of materials simply do need a lot of space, there's no way around that.

Is it possible to create great games within less than 1 GB of space? Sure. The original Doom took up less than 2.5 MB. But in the triple-A market, where graphics are important, developers will make use of the hardware that's available. Current-gen consoles can handle games of 150+ GB in size, so developers make use of it by including a large variety of hi-res textures.

why would we need those end tier graphics if 90% of all new tripple A games have a broken launch.

[Psyringe]

Originally posted by Golden Boy:

Originally posted by Psyringe:

Nope, it's simply progress. High-fidelity textures with multiple layers of materials simply do need a lot of space, there's no way around that.

Is it possible to create great games within less than 1 GB of space? Sure. The original Doom took up less than 2.5 MB. But in the triple-A market, where graphics are important, developers will make use of the hardware that's available. Current-gen consoles can handle games of 150+ GB in size, so developers make use of it by including a large variety of hi-res textures.

why would we need those end tier graphics if 90% of all new tripple A games have a broken launch.

There is no logical connection between these two things, so I don't see how that question would make sense, sorry.

As to why "we need" those graphics, you'll have to ask people who buy games mainly for the graphics - who constitute a substantial part of the triple-A audience. I usually don't, I just take them as a nice bonus. They certainly do look nice in 4k resolution on my 43' monitor, it's great to be able to get really close to textures and still see crisp and detailed surfaces.

[Golden Boy]

Originally posted by Psyringe:

Originally posted by Golden Boy:

why would we need those end tier graphics if 90% of all new tripple A games have a broken launch.

There is no logical connection between these two things, so I don't see how that question would make sense, sorry.

As to why "we need" those graphics, you'll have to ask people who buy games mainly for the graphics - who constitute a substantial part of the triple-A audience. I usually don't, I just take them as a nice bonus. They certainly do look nice in 4k resolution on my 43' monitor, it's great to be able to get really close to textures and still see crisp and detailed surfaces.

they should rather fix the games

[1GAMER]

Originally posted by Golden Boy:

Originally posted by Psyringe:

Nope, it's simply progress. High-fidelity textures with multiple layers of materials simply do need a lot of space, there's no way around that.

Is it possible to create great games within less than 1 GB of space? Sure. The original Doom took up less than 2.5 MB. But in the triple-A market, where graphics are important, developers will make use of the hardware that's available. Current-gen consoles can handle games of 150+ GB in size, so developers make use of it by including a large variety of hi-res textures.

why would we need those end tier graphics if 90% of all new tripple A games have a broken launch.

we can all agree any launch day can be better then LoTR: gollum haha

[Psyringe]

Originally posted by Golden Boy:

Originally posted by Psyringe:

There is no logical connection between these two things, so I don't see how that question would make sense, sorry.

As to why "we need" those graphics, you'll have to ask people who buy games mainly for the graphics - who constitute a substantial part of the triple-A audience. I usually don't, I just take them as a nice bonus. They certainly do look nice in 4k resolution on my 43' monitor, it's great to be able to get really close to textures and still see crisp and detailed surfaces.

they should rather fix the games

Again, there is barely any connection between these two things, so I really don't know why you keep throwing them together. You can't turn some 200 people from the graphics team into coders and have them fix bugs, that's not in their skill set.

If you talk privately to developers of games that released in a broken state, you'll find out that they usually knew that the game wasn't ready, but the publisher decided to release it anyway - sometimes because they needed more revenue in the fiscal year, sometimes because they didn't want to miss an important sales window (like the holiday season), sometimes because there's a third-party license involved and the game is just one part of a multi-media campaign, sometimes for other reasons. None of that could be fixed or otherwise changed by dropping high-resolution graphics from the feature list.

[Golden Boy]

Originally posted by Psyringe:

Originally posted by Golden Boy:

they should rather fix the games

Again, there is barely any connection between these two things, so I really don't know why you keep throwing them together. You can't turn some 200 people from the graphics team into coders and have them fix bugs, that's not in their skill set.

If you talk privately to developers of games that released in a broken state, you'll find out that they usually knew that the game wasn't ready, but the publisher decided to release it anyway - sometimes because they needed more revenue in the fiscal year, sometimes because they didn't want to miss an important sales window (like the holiday season), sometimes because there's a third-party license involved and the game is just one part of a multi-media campaign, sometimes for other reasons. None of that could be fixed or otherwise changed by dropping high-resolution graphics from the feature list.

hire less men for the graphics and hire more men for the quality control or some other stuff.
simple as.

[Deraxim]

132 gb installed rn, while i dont mind the extra size as HDDs are pretty cheap, AAA games tend to need SSDs which are pretty darn pricy if you're looking into ssds that are 1tb or bigger. and im pretty sure people dont want 500gb ssds just to fill it with 2 games, and keep buying a new one everytime a new AAA game releases or to end up with 5ssds for 6-8 games

[MISISKO]

i want 1TB !!!

[Psyringe]

Originally posted by Golden Boy:

Originally posted by Psyringe:

Again, there is barely any connection between these two things, so I really don't know why you keep throwing them together. You can't turn some 200 people from the graphics team into coders and have them fix bugs, that's not in their skill set.

If you talk privately to developers of games that released in a broken state, you'll find out that they usually knew that the game wasn't ready, but the publisher decided to release it anyway - sometimes because they needed more revenue in the fiscal year, sometimes because they didn't want to miss an important sales window (like the holiday season), sometimes because there's a third-party license involved and the game is just one part of a multi-media campaign, sometimes for other reasons. None of that could be fixed or otherwise changed by dropping high-resolution graphics from the feature list.

hire less men for the graphics and hire more men for the quality control or some other stuff.
simple as.

Nope, that's not how triple-A game development works. Again, I recommend talking to actual developers to understand the process better.

There's a point where throwing more coders at a project does not improve the bugfixing process. The reason for this is the required coordination among a large team of coders who all work on interdependent parts of the same code base. If you simply blow up the coding department to a huge size, you're very likely to introduce _more_ bugs into your game.

It also (usually) doesn't help to hire more testers for QA, because as I said before, the developers are usually aware of the issues that a game has. In most cases, the QA departments are already doing their job, they don't need more people. The problem is that the publishers often do not listen to the QA people and knowingly release the game in a buggy and/or unfinished state because of the economical reasons I listed earlier.

What would often help releasing triple-A games in a better state, is more time for development. The simplistic idea that having a large team of artists somehow makes games buggier has very little basis in reality.

[Kiwibom]

Originally posted by Deraxim:

132 gb installed rn, while i dont mind the extra size as HDDs are pretty cheap, AAA games tend to need SSDs which are pretty darn pricy if you're looking into ssds that are 1tb or bigger. and im pretty sure people dont want 500gb ssds just to fill it with 2 games, and keep buying a new one everytime a new AAA game releases or to end up with 5ssds for 6-8 games

SSD prices have dropped by quiet a lot of the 6 years. back in late 2017 i bought a 256GB samsung nvme pcie 3.0 ssd for 130€, now for the same price you can get a 2TB nvme ssd 3.0 (some 2tb pcie 4.0 are close to 130€, some even at 100€ with the most expensive models close to 200€)
2TB HDD i found were about 40-60€
SSD prices should still come down but it takes time